You will never catch me alive!...That...and you don't know my address...

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

*satire*I disagree with EVILution because if we came from monkees, why iz thar still monkees?*/satire*

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Depending on where he lives, this may not be true. For example, in my back yard there is an outcrop of solid, deformed granite. Any fossils that existed in the rock here, which - given the age - would have been no more than bacterial mats, would have been destroyed by the granite's intrusion and subsequent deformation. If he lives in such an area, then no amount of digging in his back yard will ever yield a single fossil.

Ah? I didn't know that.

So maybe he has a big piece of granite in his backyard instead of fossils. Good luck for him finding that T-Rex skeleton, then. Not that he'd likely find one to begin with - his assumptions about geology are staggeringly inane. Chalk that up to another thing that God forgot to include in the Bible, I guess.

Why does god seem to only get to countries that, gosh, Christians spread to?

Because that is how God wanted his message to be spread: by his followers who believe in Him out of their own free will.

I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not. You will have to ask God. This is basically an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't know why God does things in a certain manner doesn't mean that there is no reason why God does things a certain way.

Imaginary things (such as the alleged God "Yahweh") can't do anything. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this deity. Yet (by your own admission) you cannot demonstrate any such a things actually exists or that the word "God" refers to anything that actually exists in actual reality. Thus, your argument is moot. From the start, you've been making extended assumptions regarding your theology and those assumptions are unwarranted and unjustified. You cannot assume your position. Just like everybody else, you need to DEMONSTRATE IT. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you seriously.

The Arguments from Incredulity are all yours Mr. "Goddidit" for everything you don't understand.

I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to. For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more. Well, the ignorant I suppose.

You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.

Go meet the challenge of the OP and you might not be making ignorant statements like this. You are showing your ignorance with every word you write.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

No, an eye would be useless if it was just and eye, lying around in the environment.

An eye cannot evolve when it is detached from an animal, because it requires a blood supply, ovary, digestive system, brain, .... and well, a whole animal to be attached to.

By analogy, a mouse trap cannot just lie around in the environment, unsupervised, unbaited, and without motive.

By analogy, a mouse trap would have to be attached to a larger animal, such that the base of the mouse trap was perhaps the side of the animal, or its tongue.

If the original base of the mouse trap was the animal's tongue, then the base of the trap worked, without any other parts.

We have eyes that aren't nearly as capable as other eyes in the animal kingdom let alone what a fully functioning eye could be capable of.

We don't need a single fossil or even DNA evidence to show how eyes evolved. We can see it in existing animals going all the way back to jellyfish that have spots on their body that register light and dark. No lens, no iris, no cornea,no cone or rod cells, just a spot attached to a nerve that allows the jellyfish to move toward or away from light which gives it a huge advantage over animals with no eyes. We can even see different examples of how eyes can evolve from those simple spots with some having a single lens and lots of cells in the retina to eyes with a lens covering every retinal cell to resolve images.

Even the human eye is still evolving. Unlike most mammals we can see red because the leaves that earlier primates ate were red if they contained more nutrients. A random mutation that gave them an extra copy of the gene that produces one of the color sensing cells allowed them to see a bit into the red part of the spectrum. This gave them a small advantage but it's something that natural selection can select for and refine. They kept that extra gene and while the original one didn't change, natural selection selected for mutations in the new gene that made the eye better at seeing red. Fast-forward to now and it's happening again, a relatively new mutation in the genome produces a second copy of the gene for making the red sensing part of the eye. It mostly shows up in women in some cases allows them to see a bit more of the red part of the spectrum than the rest of us. It'll probably die out if it doesn't confer an advantage but if it were better for reproduction or survival to see into the infrared then natural selection would refine it and in a few million years we'd be able to see heat like vipers and some insects

This is a classic example of the scaffolding evolution uses to develop new abilities and how new information is added to a genome. It starts as an extra copy of a gene and works from there. It can also work the other way around like in the fused chromosomes we have that are unfused in chimps, that's why we have 46 and they have 48 (skep may even have 47)

^^ Funny thing about the eye argument ... Darwin himself debunked it nearly a century and a half ago ... and creationists are still bringing it up.

Not a big surprise, when your goal is to deny anything that conflicts with your interpretation of the bible it takes a long time for them to come up with an interpretation that makes it look like the bible said it from the start.

Based on analysis of his posts I hypothesize that skep is one of three things, a troll, extremely ignorant, or not intelligent enough to understand the logical processes that go with critical thinking. My prediction is that he is not likely to reveal which one it is himself. The evidence appears to lean more toward a lack of intelligence, as an ignorant person that's confident in their position would not have difficulty with learning about their opposing viewpoint and would be willing to change their position if it becomes untenable, and a troll or POE would likely have been discovered by now since the more posts one makes the chances of them slipping and getting caught increases. He has two real options going forward.

1. Admit to being a troll now and request mercy from the moderators since punishment may be more severe if he continues to waste everyone's time and effort to teach.

2. Prove his ability to learn by fulfilling the OP in order to show that he is intelligent and capable enough to understand it.

If one of those two scenarios are not proven to be correct in a timely manner (his next post will reveal quite a bit whether he wants it to or not). Then we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that he may have a learning disability of some sort or is simply unwilling to learn. If he has difficulty grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method then we should make an effort to slow down and help him find the resources he needs to catch up. If he's just unwilling to learn then he should be asked to find a forum with more people that agree with his worldview that's more tolerant of closed-mindedness and willing to accept claims on faith.

Its just that theists are so stubborn and ignorant, that if you say anything that doesn't sound right to them, they go "LALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU, CANT HEAR YOU!!!!" like a four year old...

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Based on analysis of his posts I hypothesize that skep is one of three things, a troll, extremely ignorant, or not intelligent enough to understand the logical processes that go with critical thinking. My prediction is that he is not likely to reveal which one it is himself. The evidence appears to lean more toward a lack of intelligence, as an ignorant person that's confident in their position would not have difficulty with learning about their opposing viewpoint and would be willing to change their position if it becomes untenable, and a troll or POE would likely have been discovered by now since the more posts one makes the chances of them slipping and getting caught increases. He has two real options going forward.

1. Admit to being a troll now and request mercy from the moderators since punishment may be more severe if he continues to waste everyone's time and effort to teach.

2. Prove his ability to learn by fulfilling the OP in order to show that he is intelligent and capable enough to understand it.

If one of those two scenarios are not proven to be correct in a timely manner (his next post will reveal quite a bit whether he wants it to or not). Then we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that he may have a learning disability of some sort or is simply unwilling to learn. If he has difficulty grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method then we should make an effort to slow down and help him find the resources he needs to catch up. If he's just unwilling to learn then he should be asked to find a forum with more people that agree with his worldview that's more tolerant of closed-mindedness and willing to accept claims on faith.

I have read carefully all of Shep's posts and I don't think he is a troll. His viewpoint is consistent in itself, it just has no relation to reality. He might or might not be as unintelligent as he appears. The problem is that he has painted himself into a corner which prevents him from admitting that he does not know what he is talking about. He does not want to learn anything. When I asked him about his qualifications, he would not answer. The most important task is to get him to acknowledge his own ignorance of reality.

I would like to say that I put sufficient pressure on him to make him ask himself serious questions, but I doubt it. At least I cornered him several times.

I am beginning to get a bit frustrated with these online debates now. I am finding them too tame. If I continue much longer I think I will just be swearing at every irrational statement. I would much prefer to get Shep in a filmed live debate in front of audience. In a live debate I could really give him the treatment he deserves. Points can be made much better with the right tone of voice and an audience reaction. (Written statements can be misinterpreted too easily as emotional outbursts.) Live debates are for the benefit of the audience, the Christian is just the lamb for the slaughter.

Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.

I have removed your comment. It is unhelpful. Just a reminder that the subject is "Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)" This does not extend to descriptions of stabbings nor to personal attacks.

Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.

I have removed Foxy Freedom's comment. It is unhelpful. GB Mod

Is that what drives your vicious obsession with Skeptic? You're worried he might try to stab somebody's demon out of them?

In another thread you used the term 'inherently evil'. I asked you if you believed in inherent evil and you haven't responded, so I'll ask it again here.My apologies: your post has become the victim of friendly fire. I hope Foxy Freedom will see fit to answer your point on "inherent evil" GB Mod

Is that what drives your vicious obsession with Skeptic? You're worried he might try to stab somebody's demon out of them?

I have removed your comment. It is unhelpful. Just a reminder that the subject is "Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)" This does not extend to descriptions of stabbings nor to personal attacks.